Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

[MarcusAu]

Fry seems not to think that "making noises and screaming . . . hating each other deeply and thinking the other vile and destructive and inhuman" is a good approach to mending a widening cultural rift.

Shockingly, the outrage brigade begs to differ.

I (for one) appreciate the updates from the conference correspondents - ie Damion and HoneyWagon - but it seems for most here that the time for an interest in such things has passed. Except where it can be used to milk the usual suspects for lols.

Must try to follow Stephen Fry's example and not become calcified in my opinions though.

[screwtape]

.... It was an explanation of why a seperate report, using a more robust definition of terrorism, had found only a handful of right wing caused deaths.

If you're going to embolden it, at leest spel it rite.

It’s unlike you to bully someone with some form of dyslexia. As I’ve mentioned before, I literally cannot “see” words.

You disappoint me.

Now, now. We don't want the bishop to lay his hands upon you and detect some pride.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Fry seems not to think that "making noises and screaming . . . hating each other deeply and thinking the other vile and destructive and inhuman" is a good approach to mending a widening cultural rift.

Shockingly, the outrage brigade begs to differ.

I (for one) appreciate the updates from the conference correspondents - ie Damion and HoneyWagon - but it seems for most here that the time for an interest in such things has passed. Except where it can be used to milk the usual suspects for lols.

Must try to follow Stephen Fry's example and not become calcified in my opinions though.

No, I'm interested as well. I miss the good old days. There was a time when I had hope the artist movement would be able to remove the stigma of being an atheist, especially in America. But then people decided to cash in with their victim status and virtue signalling. But there was lulz, tho I fear we will never have a glorious day like Carrier spooging Benson again, or the Avi plagiarism, Stolznow...oh, for the days of yore.

[Brive1987]

.... It was an explanation of why a seperate report, using a more robust definition of terrorism, had found only a handful of right wing caused deaths.

If you're going to embolden it, at leest spel it rite.

It’s unlike you to bully someone with some form of dyslexia. As I’ve mentioned before, I literally cannot “see” words.

You disappoint me.

Claiming victim status? Seriously?

Ho ho - I’m way too old and down the path to fret over something like that. I simply recall Screw having principled opinions over casual insults and autism. I had thought him one of the ‘good guys’. It’s always refreshing to have your uncritical beliefs challenged.

[free thoughtpolice]

MarcusAu wrote:

I (for one) appreciate the updates from the conference correspondents - ie Damion and HoneyWagon - but it seems for most here that the time for an interest in such things has passed. Except where it can be used to milk the usual suspects for lols.

Alas, I too miss the good old days. It seems some weird Aussie cult called covfefe has raided us and lead us astray. :cry:

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

.... It was an explanation of why a seperate report, using a more robust definition of terrorism, had found only a handful of right wing caused deaths.

If you're going to embolden it, at leest spel it rite.

It’s unlike you to bully someone with some form of dyslexia. As I’ve mentioned before, I literally cannot “see” words.

You disappoint me.

Claiming victim status? Seriously?

Ho ho - I’m way too old and down the path to fret over something like that. I simply recall Screw having principled opinions over casual insults and autism. I had thought him one of the ‘good guys’. It’s always refreshing to have your uncritical beliefs challenged.

This from a man tossing out insults very liberally, and suggesting that I might be senile yesterday, though I believe we are very close in age. But you felt bullied by Screwtape, interesting. Perhaps we could move these "questions of nationalism" or whatever it has morphed into to the side-thread, where you will be less likely to feel bullied? It would be nice to see some of the posters who have fled in boredom or disgust come back. And we would be less irritating to innocent bystanders.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

MarcusAu wrote:

I (for one) appreciate the updates from the conference correspondents - ie Damion and HoneyWagon - but it seems for most here that the time for an interest in such things has passed. Except where it can be used to milk the usual suspects for lols.

Alas, I too miss the good old days. It seems some weird Aussie cult called covfefe has raided us and lead us astray. :cry:

Apparently the "tall poppy syndrome" is no longer a thing down under.

[Brive1987]

Brive wrote:

Also don’t be a donk, I did read that para which you quoted out-of-context. It was an explanation of why a seperate report, using a more robust definition of terrorism, had found only a handful of right wing caused deaths.

First of all it wasn't out of context. Secondly it wasn't an explanation of why a separate report had only found a "handful of deaths", it made the point that if non organized attacks inspired by rightwing political ideology were to be included there would be a lot of it.
You apparently didn't understand the point I was trying to make, nor did you read the PDF carefully enough to grasp the whole of it.

Ok, let’s try again. Your snip did not place the para in its proper context.

That context being a SEPARATE :lol: study by the anti defamation league which found only a handful of Rightwing caused deaths - but which was followed by the caveat. A caveat you presented as stand alone evidence, seemingly from the police survey itself.

:naughty:

Another report by the Anti-Defamation League, using a more restrictive definition of right-wing extremist violence that “focuses only on premeditated plots or acts by right‐ wing extremist individuals or groups that rise to the level of attempted or actual domestic terrorism,” presents “a select list” of 34 attacks and 38 fatalities between 9/11 and the end of 2014. This report “is not a comprehensive list of all right‐wing violence. Many murders, including unplanned or spontaneous acts of violence, are not included here, nor are thousands of lesser incidents of violence. Such a compilation would be book‐length.”

We have specific data and then we have unsupported conjecture. What exactly are the boundaries around “lesser incidents of violence”. I suspect we are back at bigotry and harsh language. Or maybe not. Who knows? What’s certain is that this is all a very passive way to make an argument.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Brive wrote:

Also don’t be a donk, I did read that para which you quoted out-of-context. It was an explanation of why a seperate report, using a more robust definition of terrorism, had found only a handful of right wing caused deaths.

First of all it wasn't out of context. Secondly it wasn't an explanation of why a separate report had only found a "handful of deaths", it made the point that if non organized attacks inspired by rightwing political ideology were to be included there would be a lot of it.
You apparently didn't understand the point I was trying to make, nor did you read the PDF carefully enough to grasp the whole of it.

Ok, let’s try again. Your snip did not place the para in its proper context.

That context being a SEPARATE :lol: study by the anti defamation league which found only a handful of Rightwing caused deaths - but which was followed by the caveat. A caveat you presented as stand alone evidence, seemingly from the police survey itself.

:naughty:

Another report by the Anti-Defamation League, using a more restrictive definition of right-wing extremist violence that “focuses only on premeditated plots or acts by right‐ wing extremist individuals or groups that rise to the level of attempted or actual domestic terrorism,” presents “a select list” of 34 attacks and 38 fatalities between 9/11 and the end of 2014. This report “is not a comprehensive list of all right‐wing violence. Many murders, including unplanned or spontaneous acts of violence, are not included here, nor are thousands of lesser incidents of violence. Such a compilation would be book‐length.”

We have specific data and then we have unsupported conjecture. What exactly are the boundaries around “lesser incidents of violence”. I suspect we are back at bigotry and harsh language. Or maybe not. Who knows? What’s certain is that this is all a very passive way to make an argument.

Translation- "No amount of evidence will change my mind. I will always find problems with the evidence presented to me, meanwhile providing no evidence to support my claim. Come for the denialism, stay for the insults."

[Brive1987]

This from a man tossing out insults very liberally, and suggesting that I might be senile yesterday, though I believe we are very close in age. But you felt bullied by Screwtape, interesting. Perhaps we could move these "questions of nationalism" or whatever it has morphed into to the side-thread, where you will be less likely to feel bullied? It would be nice to see some of the posters who have fled in boredom or disgust come back. And we would be less irritating to innocent bystanders.

I didn’t say how I felt. But if you must know, I felt amused and curious my weakness had finally been mentioned after many years. And I felt slightly surprised it was Screw that thought to chase that angle, in that manner. But I won’t be losing any sleep.

“I am OK”. Thanks for the concern.

And yesterday, I was simply pondering the possible (hypothetical) reasons for your lack of willingness to address what i was saying - rather than what you chose to hear.

[Brive1987]

CFB - I’ve conceded that there is long standing endemic weirdness (that sometimes expresses as violence) in America. And that this characteristic could be placed under a very general, very country specific, umbrella of “right wing”. Though in this context that label describes what it isn’t rather than what it is.

Uncontroversial. I’m sure the typical cop is more concerned with Unibombers and pro-life wack-jobs than bomb throwing Trots.

Let’s lock that in.

Now, during this prolonged discussion, I have addressed the right and left political collectives and parties.

The democrats have created a moral panic against the trump nazis. Democrats legitimise punching them, they acknowledge “inevitable and understandable” violence, republicans got shot for being republicans, people are harassed in their homes and in their private establishments - and (D) leaders call for more. Leaders express their surprise there are not more uprisings everywhere, H. Clinton makes her appeal for escalation. SJW mobs are co-opted to claw at the doors of the Supreme Court - without rebuke. “Me too” and false rape narratives are legit partisan tactics. Madonna wants to blow up the White House and is cheered.

To my mind this is a new dynamic, certainly as a broad Democrat or neocon approach. It is built out of the drift to social-liberalism and SWism. It is found on the left. It’s largely unmatched by (R) as SOP, outside Trump convention halls, and is not a characteristic of AfD or Generation Identity.

That is, and was, my point. Now maybe I’m 100% wrong. Or maybe I’m generalising to spot a broad ‘truth’ and a detailed history would require masses of nuance. Maybe I’m largely correct.

Who knows? Because googling examples of sovereign-citizen crime or anti gay bigotry or simple racism is not a useful contribution to the discussion. Nor is your intemperate attitude and unaccountable anger. Which is all a pity as I come to learn, debate and test ideas as much as I come to preach.

:naughty:

[free thoughtpolice]

Brive wrote:

Ok, let’s try again. Your snip did not place the para in its proper context.

That context being a SEPARATE :lol: study by the anti defamation league which found only a handful of Rightwing caused deaths - but which was followed by the caveat. A caveat you presented as stand alone evidence, seemingly from the police survey itself.

I used the quote to show that the topic of the paper wasn't a broad view of right wing violence and might underestimate. You are mistaken about the context that I linked that to, and then use your thick headed mistake to try and prove my assertion to be wrong.

We have specific data and then we have unsupported conjecture. What exactly are the boundaries around “lesser incidents of violence”. I suspect we are back at bigotry and harsh language. Or maybe not. Who knows? What’s certain is that this is all a very passive way to make an argument.

That simply says is that if you expanded the definition it would voluminous. Yes, conjecture. Unsupported? Hardly, just common sense. Not like your unsupported conjecture that it is referring to bigotry and harsh language.
Do people in the covfefe cult practice the debating principles of the gamesmanship, oneupsmanship?
Conjecturing minds want to know!

[Brive1987]

How would anyone know “the paper” you allude to wasnt the police one? They wouldn’t. Because you didn’t place it’s authorship in context. It’s really that simple.

I note we are now using “commonsense” as a basis for supporting an argument. Nice.

My concerns are not unreasonable - given other papers presented here have cited the drawing of Jewish motifs and “hate speech” as evidence of terrorism. A pity the “anti deformation league” didn’t supply a definition.

This is vey 101 stuff.

[Keating]

No, I'm interested as well. I miss the good old days. There was a time when I had hope the artist movement would be able to remove the stigma of being an atheist, especially in America. But then people decided to cash in with their victim status and virtue signalling. But there was lulz, tho I fear we will never have a glorious day like Carrier spooging Benson again, or the Avi plagiarism, Stolznow...oh, for the days of yore.

Eh, those days weren't that good, just the prelude before the storm. There was always going to be the backlash against that kind of self righteousness. It was why I hoped and still hope for the backlash to come sooner rather than later. The longer the backlash builds to SocJus crap, the worse the backlash will be. The backlash has to come, however, because SocJus is inherently oppressive and permeates everything. You are never free of that tyranny, because it is for your own good.

C.S. Lewis was exactly right on this:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

[free thoughtpolice]

So your answer is :
Yes I am a troll!

[free thoughtpolice]

To Brive, not Keating.

[free thoughtpolice]

No, I'm interested as well. I miss the good old days. There was a time when I had hope the artist movement would be able to remove the stigma of being an atheist, especially in America. But then people decided to cash in with their victim status and virtue signalling. But there was lulz, tho I fear we will never have a glorious day like Carrier spooging Benson again, or the Avi plagiarism, Stolznow...oh, for the days of yore.

Eh, those days weren't that good, just the prelude before the storm. There was always going to be the backlash against that kind of self righteousness. It was why I hoped and still hope for the backlash to come sooner rather than later. The longer the backlash builds to SocJus crap, the worse the backlash will be. The backlash has to come, however, because SocJus is inherently oppressive and permeates everything. You are never free of that tyranny, because it is for your own good.

C.S. Lewis was exactly right on this:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

BTW What do you think of this claim?

[KiwiInOz]

*Hearst. Duh.

They think it's all over. It is now! It's four!

Patty Hearst
Heard the burst
Of Roland's Thompson gun
And bought it.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

CFB - I’ve conceded that there is long standing endemic weirdness (that sometimes expresses as violence) in America. And that this characteristic could be placed under a very general, very country specific, umbrella of “right wing”. Though in this context that label describes what it isn’t rather than what it is.

Uncontroversial. I’m sure the typical cop is more concerned with Unibombers and pro-life wack-jobs than bomb throwing Trots.

Let’s lock that in.

Now, during this prolonged discussion, I have addressed the right and left political collectives and parties.

The democrats have created a moral panic against the trump nazis. Democrats legitimise punching them, they acknowledge “inevitable and understandable” violence, republicans got shot for being republicans, people are harassed in their homes and in their private establishments - and (D) leaders call for more. Leaders express their surprise there are not more uprisings everywhere, H. Clinton makes her appeal for escalation. SJW mobs are co-opted to claw at the doors of the Supreme Court - without rebuke. “Me too” and false rape narratives are legit partisan tactics. Madonna wants to blow up the White House and is cheered.

To my mind this is a new dynamic, certainly as a broad Democrat or neocon approach. It is built out of the drift to social-liberalism and SWism. It is found on the left. It’s largely unmatched by (R) as SOP, outside Trump convention halls, and is not a characteristic of AfD or Generation Identity.

That is, and was, my point. Now maybe I’m 100% wrong. Or maybe I’m generalising to spot a broad ‘truth’ and a detailed history would require masses of nuance. Maybe I’m largely correct.

Who knows? Because googling examples of sovereign-citizen crime or anti gay bigotry or simple racism is not a useful contribution to the discussion. Nor is your intemperate attitude and unaccountable anger. Which is all a pity as I come to learn, debate and test ideas as much as I come to preach.

:naughty:

You came to learn. Right. You interpret your side as charitably as possible and demonize the other side at every opportunity. You strew insults and preach like you're a proper professor instead of a middle-manager in grad school.

In case you forgot or didn't know, conservatives lost their shit when Obama was elected.

Unarmed.jpg

(79.64 KiB) Downloaded 185 times

teapartyracism.jpg

(72.42 KiB) Downloaded 182 times

unnamed.jpg

(13.69 KiB) Downloaded 182 times

Lots more. Remember the birther movement? Remember the guy that promoted that batshit insane theory? Your attempts to demonize one side while papering over the right is childish. There's plenty of blame to go around.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

No, I'm interested as well. I miss the good old days. There was a time when I had hope the artist movement would be able to remove the stigma of being an atheist, especially in America. But then people decided to cash in with their victim status and virtue signalling. But there was lulz, tho I fear we will never have a glorious day like Carrier spooging Benson again, or the Avi plagiarism, Stolznow...oh, for the days of yore.

Eh, those days weren't that good, just the prelude before the storm. There was always going to be the backlash against that kind of self righteousness. It was why I hoped and still hope for the backlash to come sooner rather than later. The longer the backlash builds to SocJus crap, the worse the backlash will be. The backlash has to come, however, because SocJus is inherently oppressive and permeates everything. You are never free of that tyranny, because it is for your own good.

C.S. Lewis was exactly right on this:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

Please tell me you don't think the alt-right with their Dark Enlightenment is the cure. There's nutcases on both sides, reasonable people in the middle. Reacting to one crazy movement by being equally crazy in the opposite way doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

[free thoughtpolice]

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

I remember Rush Limbaugh talking armed revolution back in the Clinton days. Claiming violence is a product of the left is like Muslims saying that the West was really, really asking for it.

[Brive1987]

:hankey: You strew insults and preach like you're a proper professor instead of a middle-manager in grad school.



:lol: thank you.

http://i.imgur.com/vdwqcVO.jpg

[Brive1987]

So your answer is :
Yes I am a troll!

I think I missed the question there ....

[Keating]

Please tell me you don't think the alt-right with their Dark Enlightenment is the cure. There's nutcases on both sides, reasonable people in the middle. Reacting to one crazy movement by being equally crazy in the opposite way doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

No. I think they are the "worse" if the backlash isn't allowed to come early. The only option I see is to ideologically crush the SocJus types as soon as possible. I'm not optimistic about it, because they control the academy and much of the media. What is necessary is for those "reasonably people in the middle" to over throw them before the crazies on the right become the only option. It seems to me, from the Australian experience at least, in many Western countries, you've got a choice of extreme SocJus or milder SocJus political parties, and the only political parties prepared to argue against it are generally full of nutters. That's not a real choice. The longer there is not a real repudiation of the SocJus ethos from the centre, the more attractive the nutter parties look, and they'll eventually win.

That said, I do have doubts about the long term viability of universal suffrage in conjunction with the welfare state. I also strongly doubt pan-national projects. Utopianism, and the idea that humans are perfectable seems to be the real enemies to me. What I really have trouble with is that a lot of the people who were pointing this out 10-20 years ago, are now firmly indoctrinated into the SocJus army.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Tough day for the Alt-Righ.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Please tell me you don't think the alt-right with their Dark Enlightenment is the cure. There's nutcases on both sides, reasonable people in the middle. Reacting to one crazy movement by being equally crazy in the opposite way doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

No. I think they are the "worse" if the backlash isn't allowed to come early. The only option I see is to ideologically crush the SocJus types as soon as possible. I'm not optimistic about it, because they control the academy and much of the media. What is necessary is for those "reasonably people in the middle" to over throw them before the crazies on the right become the only option. It seems to me, from the Australian experience at least, in many Western countries, you've got a choice of extreme SocJus or milder SocJus political parties, and the only political parties prepared to argue against it are generally full of nutters. That's not a real choice. The longer there is not a real repudiation of the SocJus ethos from the centre, the more attractive the nutter parties look, and they'll eventually win.

That said, I do have doubts about the long term viability of universal suffrage in conjunction with the welfare state. I also strongly doubt pan-national projects. Utopianism, and the idea that humans are perfectable seems to be the real enemies to me. What I really have trouble with is that a lot of the people who were pointing this out 10-20 years ago, are now firmly indoctrinated into the SocJus army.

That's considerably different than my experience in America. Most Democrats are pretty middle-of-the-road, it's only the crazies that get the press. Nothing like clickable. The crazies have the universities , but their excesses are getting notice. The only thing keeping the moderate left from turning on the crazy left, is, quite literally, Trump. I'm getting more optimistic as time goes on. The extreme left, like the extreme right, are unsustainable ventures, and usually end up cannibalizing themselves before long.

[Brive1987]

You came to learn. Right. You interpret your side as charitably as possible and demonize the other side at every opportunity. You strew insults and preach like you're a proper professor instead of a middle-manager in grad school.

In case you forgot or didn't know, conservatives lost their shit when Obama was elected.

Lots more. Remember the birther movement? Remember the guy that promoted that batshit insane theory? Your attempts to demonize one side while papering over the right is childish. There's plenty of blame to go around.

It would be a stronger case if you said,

No. It is not a new dynamic. Please consider these direct parallels:

Republican popularism saw liberals tarred with a dehumanising label designed to promote pre-emotive violence - ie [nazi] This label was picked up by the national media and produced a violent meme which was warmly embraced.

High ranking establishment house republicans aided and abetted this hostility by calling for violence and harassment against democrats - [video inserts here].

This was not a one off but was echoed by a number of other leaders - [insert video here]

Violence against Democratic leaders was then tolerated and expressly excused here - [insert tweet]

Extreme white nationalist mobs were paid for and brought into the senate here in order to intimidate lawful procedure -[evidence please]

Etc

Too much hard work? I guess so compared to googling random tea party racists.

[Brive1987]

The only thing keeping the moderate left from turning on the crazy left, is, quite literally, Trump.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

If only there had been a preceding 8 year period with a non-Trump Democratic Presidency.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

The only thing keeping the moderate left from turning on the crazy left, is, quite literally, Trump.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

If only there had been a preceding 8 year period with a non-Trump Democratic Presidency.

I'm beginning to think Franc was right about the smiley emojis. You do realize that Trump has emboldened the extreme left, yes? Just as much (but certainly not all) of the right has coalesced around Trump.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

You came to learn. Right. You interpret your side as charitably as possible and demonize the other side at every opportunity. You strew insults and preach like you're a proper professor instead of a middle-manager in grad school.

In case you forgot or didn't know, conservatives lost their shit when Obama was elected.

Lots more. Remember the birther movement? Remember the guy that promoted that batshit insane theory? Your attempts to demonize one side while papering over the right is childish. There's plenty of blame to go around.

It would be a stronger case if you said,

No. It is not a new dynamic. Please consider these direct parallels:

Republican popularism saw liberals tarred with a dehumanising label designed to promote pre-emotive violence - ie [nazi] This label was picked up by the national media and produced a violent meme which was warmly embraced.

High ranking establishment house republicans aided and abetted this hostility by calling for violence and harassment against democrats - [video inserts here].

This was not a one off but was echoed by a number of other leaders - [insert video here]

Violence against Democratic leaders was then tolerated and expressly excused here - [insert tweet]

Extreme white nationalist mobs were paid for and brought into the senate here in order to intimidate lawful procedure -[evidence please]

Etc

Too much hard work? I guess so compared to googling random tea party racists.

Too much work when, no matter what is posted, you'll simply retreat to your bailey. I'm only answering your posts to help, in my small way, to keep the pit from looking like an Alt-Right subreddit. Seriously. Otherwise you'd be on ignore like your soulmate Steersman. You're not an honest agent, so really no point. You're simply a partisan hack.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Also, since you tried to shame the doc, would you mind showing where and when you revealed your dyslexic condition? Let alone multiple times. I'm not recalling that, but searching on a phone is problematic.

[KiwiInOz]

OMG, this internecine pillow fight is getting tedious.

[Keating]

You're clearly a racist. You're even wearing a racist hat in your profile picture.

[Kirbmarc]

.... It was an explanation of why a seperate report, using a more robust definition of terrorism, had found only a handful of right wing caused deaths.

If you're going to embolden it, at leest spel it rite.

It’s unlike you to bully someone with some form of dyslexia. As I’ve mentioned before, I literally cannot “see” words.

You disappoint me.

This from the guy that regularly calls all of his critics "libTARDs". Outrageous. :bjarte:

[dog puke]

You're clearly a racist. You're even wearing a racist hat in your profile picture.

Platypus's with racist hats are the worst.

[Brive1987]

Also, since you tried to shame the doc, would you mind showing where and when you revealed your dyslexic condition? Let alone multiple times. I'm not recalling that, but searching on a phone is problematic.

Maybe he revels in un-ironic insult in which case there is no shame. I’m simply disappointed to have to downgrade my mental profile of him. Meh. I’m sure he will cope.

I’ve definitely mentions my spelling weirdness before. Not multiple times though. I’m not sure the best way to search here (Boolean?) You’d have to make it worth my while. Want to die on that (mole)hill?

Kirb. I apologise. I didn’t realise you were retarded in RL.

Noted.

[Kirbmarc]

Also, since you tried to shame the doc, would you mind showing where and when you revealed your dyslexic condition? Let alone multiple times. I'm not recalling that, but searching on a phone is problematic.

Maybe he revels in un-ironic insult in which case there is no shame. I’m simply disappointed to have to downgrade my mental profile of him. Meh. I’m sure he will cope.

I’ve definitely mentions my spelling weirdness before. Not multiple times though. I’m not sure the best way to search here (Boolean?) You’d have to make it worth my while. Want to die on that (mole)hill?

Kirb. I apologise. I didn’t realise you were retarded in RL.

Noted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqDZOekUDzE

[Brive1987]

viewtopic.php?p=287723#p287723

There’s a start. And maybe an end. But really. I’m ok that screw didn’t mean anything beyond cheap and obvious mockery - which deserved an equally cheap and obvious push back.

[Kirbmarc]

viewtopic.php?p=287723#p287723

There’s a start. And maybe an end. But really. I’m ok that screw didn’t mean anything beyond cheap and obvious mockery - which deserved an equally cheap and obvious push back.

The moral of the story is that no matter what you do, you're always the victim. The SocJus has got nothing on you.

Cheering for a "genocide" of "cretins" is a-OK, just Russian humor:

Someone joking about your bad spelling: OMG do you even know I'm dyslexic? :bjarte:

At least be a good at taking what you dish out. Your posts are full of personal attacks on everyone who criticizes you and you've made fun of everyone in the SocJus who has claimed victim status, including Rebecca Watson and her prosopagnosia, which is no less documented than your dyslexia. But then you act offended that someone has dared to make a joke at your expense.

[Brive1987]

But I don’t regard myself a victim. I simply thought it below the standards I had set for the doc. Plus he was being a bit of a dick. Whatever. Never put your heroes on pedestals.

I still think a ‘genocide of cretins’ is potentially amusing hyperbole. There were a couple of levels in my tweet. I now know they were for my personal noting.

Did you accept my apology?

[Brive1987]

I would be interested to understand my life-long spelling issues. I’ve always regarded it as an inherent trait like hair colour etc. but it’s really frustrating.

It doesn’t matter how much I write, or repeat words etc, there are combinations I will never “learn” or “see” in my minds eye.

Curiously weird. :doh:

[Kirbmarc]

But I don’t regard myself a victim. I simply thought it below the standards I had set for the doc. Plus he was being a bit of a dick. Whatever. Never put your heroes on pedestals.

I still think a ‘genocide of cretins’ is potentially amusing hyperbole. There were a couple of levels in my tweet. I now know they were for my personal noting.

Did you accept my apology?

Nah, I'm pretty sure I'm not a retard, though I might be an ass-burglar, especially considering how much time I wasted debating SteersMann. :bjarte:

It's just hilarious to read about you calling others "a bit of a dick" when your whole shtick since the Big Ethnic Flame War started has been to insinuate that your critics are mentally or emotionally deficient in some ways and so unable to reply to your sublime feats of multi-layered meta-meta-meta-ironic intellectual prowess (are you sure you're not John Morales?).

But please, carry on. It's always amusing to see a right-wing snowflake. :popcorn:

[Kirbmarc]

I would be interested to understand my life-long spelling issues. I’ve always regarded it as an inherent trait like hair colour etc. but it’s really frustrating.

It doesn’t matter how much I write, or repeat words etc, there are combinations I will never “learn” or “see” in my minds eye.

Curiously weird. :doh:

[Linguist mode on]

There are different types of reading and spelling difficulties. Did you ever get a diagnosis?

"True" or "deep" dyslexia has likely a neurological component, which might be at least in part genetic in origin. Heritability from dyslexia range from 0.5 to 0.93, although it's likely polygenetic (determined by more than a single gene, so non-Mendelian in its heritability patterns). So if you're a "deep" dyslexic your problem is likely an inherent trait, as you suspected.

Although an online diagnosis is far from ideal, reviewing a history of issues can help you to guess. "Deep" dyslexia is an impairment of phonological decoding (going from letters to sounds), which is strongly linked to phonological ability in general. Did you find it hard, as a child, to tell whether two lines in a poem or a song rhymed? How often did you play with your language, as in recombining the beginning of words to form intentional spoonerisms?

[Linguist mode off]

[MarcusAu]

Perhaps it would a good thing to attribute anything we read online (or elsewhere) as being the product of a strange neurological condition - and thus refrain from responding.

[Brive1987]

Libtard is simply pushing buttons and short hand for ‘wrong think’ - from my perspective.

I’m not sure I’ve gone all out ad hominem here very often, there maybe some frustration or snideness as we talk past each other or ribbing. Generally if I want to genuinely call out someone I’ll tell em to “get fucked”. Criticism? Definitely. Exaggeration for clarity or as a declarative? Possible. Generally I try and stay on some sort of logical pathway. I also wouldn’t discount the sheer bloody mindedness the “opposition” displays.

I do like to put in a nod or a wink to different ideas and angles. Not as a gotcha but to try and avoid 1 dimensionality I don’t know if this is meta meta meta whatever. But it is instinctively there. I suspect if this was done in person it would probably be a lot clearer.

/Pit stuff

I don’t know what a spoonerism is and would hope it might involve either or both Pettibones. If so, no. Doesn’t happen.

What I have come across are old and disturbing lists, in my child writing, of attempted spellings for basic words, maybe 8 or 9 desperate combinations to get something that looked like it might be right.

We have computers and internet now, but that total blank is still often there.
Seperate or separate? On what basis do I choose?
Two l’s or one?
C or S?

The only time it really impacts now is if I have to handwrite something that can’t be re-edited (a card for instance). Then I’ll typically type it out first and check. But even then I won’t confidently scrawl it out.

My non arithmetic maths never launched and learning French was a problem. English analysis, History, Geography, system solutions and a logical decision tree approach to problems is not an issue.

(Just out of interest I spelt it snidness, got suspicious, and instinctively googled the correct spelling) SOP.

Happily my kids are fine.

/victimhood

[Kirbmarc]

Libtard is simply pushing buttons and short hand for ‘wrong think’ - from my perspective.

I’m not sure I’ve gone all out ad hominem here very often, there maybe some frustration or snideness as we talk past each other or ribbing. Generally if I want to genuinely call out someone I’ll tell em to “get fucked”. Criticism? Definitely. Exaggeration for clarity or as a declarative? Possible. Generally I try and stay on some sort of logical pathway. I also wouldn’t discount the sheer bloody mindedness the “opposition” displays.

I do like to put in a nod or a wink to different ideas and angles. Not as a gotcha but to try and avoid 1 dimensionality I don’t know if this is meta meta meta whatever. But it is instinctively there. I suspect if this was done in person it would probably be a lot clearer.

/Pit stuff

I don’t know what a spoonerism is and would hope it might involve either or both Pettibones. If so, no. Doesn’t happen.

What I have come across are old and disturbing lists, in my child writing, of attempted spellings for basic words, maybe 8 or 9 desperate combinations to get something that looked like it might be right.

We have computers and internet now, but that total blank is still often there.
Seperate or separate? On what basis do I choose?
Two l’s or one?
C or S?

The only time it really impacts now is if I have to handwrite something that can’t be re-edited (a card for instance). Then I’ll typically type it out first and check. But even then I won’t confidently scrawl it out.

My non arithmetic maths never launched and learning French was a problem. English analysis, History, Geography, system solutions and a logical decision tree approach to problems is not an issue.

(Just out of interest I spelt it snidness, got suspicious, and instinctively googled the correct spelling) SOP.

Happily my kids are fine.

/victimhood

A spoonerism is a substitution of a phoneme (a unit of sound) between two units of language (words, if they have meaning, or non-words, if they don't). For example: "A blushing crow" for "a crushing blow" (meaningful spoonerism) or "pilk snip" for "pink slip" (meaningless spoonerism).

There's a phase of language learning when it's rather common for children to experiment with (usually) meaningless spoonerisms, to "make up words" by changing and switching sounds between them. Children with dyslexia find this very hard and usually avoid the experimental phase.

[Kirbmarc]

Indeed one of the ways to diagnose "deep" dyslexia in children around the age of 3/4 is for a speech therapist to play a "game" of substituting sounds between words. Non-dyslexic children find the "game" funny and usually come up with some new substitutions on their own. "Deep" dyslexic children find the "game" hard and usually get bored of it easily.

[Hunt]

(Just out of interest I spelt it snidness, got suspicious, and instinctively googled the correct spelling) SOP.

Are you saying you don't have a browser with spell-check? What, are you using IE 3.0?

[Hunt]

There's a phase of language learning when it's rather common for children to experiment with (usually) meaningless spoonerisms, to "make up words" by changing and switching sounds between them. Children with dyslexia find this very hard and usually avoid the experimental phase.

I used to work for a family whose daughter kept saying "chiminey" for "chimney" a la Marry Poppins.

She was a rude little bitch and I wanted to make fun of her. But I didn't.

[Brive1987]

(Just out of interest I spelt it snidness, got suspicious, and instinctively googled the correct spelling) SOP.

Are you saying you don't have a browser with spell-check? What, are you using IE 3.0?

I use an iPad which has auto correct but doesn’t give a red line for spelling errors.

http://i.imgur.com/InYc2p0.jpg

[Brive1987]

I have no memories of spoonerisms, either for or against. :bjarte:

[Hunt]

Hunt wrote: ↑

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
(Just out of interest I spelt it snidness, got suspicious, and instinctively googled the correct spelling) SOP.

Are you saying you don't have a browser with spell-check? What, are you using IE 3.0?

I use an iPad which has auto correct but doesn’t give a red line for spelling errors.

I have sympathy. I'm an atrocious speller myself. I don't know what I'd do without the red underscore. The more I've written on the internet and had to pay attention to spelling, the more words like 'seperate' just "look" wrong to me, and I know that it's an a. Words like 'snidness' are easier to suss out since without the e the i seems like a short i, a rule that can be applied generally, but not universally (in English anyway). English is actually quite diabolical to people with bad spelling. The moment you think you've got it down, an exception pops up.

[Kirbmarc]

I have sympathy. I'm an atrocious speller myself. I don't know what I'd do without the red underscore. The more I've written on the internet and had to pay attention to spelling, the more words like 'seperate' just "look" wrong to me, and I know that it's an a. Words like 'snidness' are easier to suss out since without the e the i seems like a short i, a rule that can be applied generally, but not universally (in English anyway). English is actually quite diabolical to people with bad spelling. The moment you think you've got it down, an exception pops up.

There's a reason for that, namely that English spelling has a very long and complex history.

Modern English spelling was developed around 1350 AD, but it was never codified, and it was often subjected to variations between speakers of Anglo-Saxon and of Anglo-Norman ancestry. Basically every writer used its own idiosyncratic spelling. After the invention of printing things got even worse. Most printers of the most widely available books (like the Bible) were not native English speakers, and modified the spelling according to the conventions of their language (usually Dutch).

Further attempts to improve things were done by the literate elite, who often tried more to make English words look like as if they were derived from Latin and Greek origins. Have you asked yourself with the "b" in debt or doubt are silent? That's because they were introduced by scholars who thought that debt came directly from Latin "debitum" and doubt directly from the Latin "dubitare", when actually they came from ancient French "dette" and "doute", where the origin Latin "b" had already been lost.

Also the Great Vowel Shift that happened between the 14th and the 19th century changed pronunciation heavily, so for example "name", which is now pronounced /neɪm/ (rhymes with "claim"), in Geoffrey Chaucer's times was pronounced /namɪ/(rhymes with "tsunami"), so in Chaucer's times the spelling "name" made much sense.

Other languages, like French, Italian, or German, were codified with a precise and phonologically consistent (one sound, one letter) spelling in relatively recent times, usually due to political efforts, to get a uniform spelling of the "standard" language. English is a highly anarchic language where everything goes and the choices of spelling are usually made because of matters of literary or academic prestige or simply of the force of habit.

[KiwiInOz]

You're clearly a racist. You're even wearing a racist hat in your profile picture.

I know you are. You said you are. But what am I?

[Ape+lust]

Speaking of reeeeeeee, Torvalds got his old job back. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45953233
Reformed or secretly unrepentant? We'll soon find out.

This is a little reassuring:

Torvalds said he didn't directly set up the CoC: "I actually stepped away from the CoC discussions exactly because I did *not* want it to be seen as me personally being involved in the discussion. So I was off-line partly to just let that whole discussion happen without people feeling like I was influencing it." But, he "did end up following email just to not be out of the loop."

https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-tor ... -on-linux/

However, this isn't. He's naive about the intent of CoC entryists:

He said, "We don't want the CoC (Code of Conduct) to define the tone of the discussion, I think we're actually much better off if we can just try to see the CoC as a last resort that never even gets invoked, simply because we encourage people to try to head any issues off before they escalate."

...

Looking ahead, Torvalds said, "I want to leave it alone, and wait until we actually have any real issues. I'm hoping there won't be any, but even if there are, I want the input to be colored more by real and *actual* concerns, rather than just people arguing about it."

Now it's my turn to REEEEEEEEEE... Remember Professor Strumia, who gave a presentation which showed the notion that STEM fields discriminated against women was an inversion of reality? He's been suspended from his position at CERN :shock:

CERN suspends professor after saying men are discriminated against in STEM fields.

[Brive1987]

The 152nd Honduran Mech Brigade conducts field operations! :lol:

[Hunt]

Rubin and Fiamengo, for anyone interested:

[Keating]

You're clearly a racist. You're even wearing a racist hat in your profile picture.

I know you are. You said you are. But what am I?

I'm rubber and you're glue. What you say to me, bounces off and sticks to you.

[shoutinghorse]

The EU is now rewriting history.